Then maybe don't mislead people about the situation. The issue here is that, according to the scientific consensus, there is a minimum level of emissions reduction that absolutely must be attained within about ten years in order to ensure human survival. Biden doesn't come close
-
-
Replying to @GwylAnarchaidd @mattyglesias
That's not the scientific consensus Anyone who says there's a hard cutoff point for "human survival" is making shit up
3 replies 2 retweets 41 likes -
And, bluntly, if there is a hard cutoff point and we have to get to it within ten years, that's fundamentally impossible and straight up not going to happen Bernie couldn't do it either Only conquering the whole world and ruling it with an iron fist could do it
3 replies 6 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mattyglesias
Sanders didn't even propose to do it. Indeed, the scientific consensus expressed in that report was that a fundamental change in the social and economic system was necessary in order to ensure human survival.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GwylAnarchaidd @mattyglesias
The IPCC report didn't say anything about "human survival" and hyperbolic messaging about all human life dying out or the oceans boiling etc is exactly what people have been saying not to say
2 replies 2 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mattyglesias
People paid for by the oil industry, certainly. Meanwhile, the IPCC were quite blunt, having been utterly ignored for years when they've tried to be diplomatic about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GwylAnarchaidd @mattyglesias
Again, that's literally not what the IPCC said, the furthest they went was saying "For some people alive today this is a life and death concern"
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mattyglesias
Again, I'll listen to them over your misrepresentation of their report.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GwylAnarchaidd @mattyglesias
Have you actually read the report? It explicitly DOES NOT talk about hard cutoffs Instead it repeatedly draws a comparison between 1.5 degrees of warming and 2 degrees of warming, saying the 2 degrees scenario is "more extreme" and provides "less opportunity to adapt"
3 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mattyglesias
I even read the bits you find it inconvenient to remember. They were amply reported at the time, but I can see why the régime and its supporters wouldn't want people dwell on the fact that we can literally chose between the preservation of the régime and a habitable planet
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
No, you haven't, because the report nowhere says that "oxygen levels will become incompatible with human survival" and such a statement is wildly irresponsible because it's plainly false
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mattyglesias
So you're a permafrost denier now
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Are you indicating that the report says that oxygen levels will become incompatible with human survival? If so, where does it say this?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.